Now would be a good time to start planning for it to be an 8-team playoff. Conference champs from the major conferences, plus two play-in spots from the mid-majors. Seed them by W/L and SoS, then go at it. 1-8, 4-5, 3-6, and 2-7, with 8 and 7 coming from the play-in games. The winner of 1-8 plays the winner of 4-5, and the winner of 2-7 plays the winner of 3-6. Move up from there. A week off in between. If the owners of the traditional bowls want in on it, they can host a particular seed meeting each year, but that shouldn't bounce around, meaning if the Fiesta wants the 3-6 game, they should always have 3-6 (as long as they're willing to pay for it). That's nine games total, all of which would actually mean something, but they'd have to start in mid-December.

Its hard man. I remember Tuna saying, when he coached the cowboys, that as you get older the wins arent as good as the losses are bad. But, its a damn fun game to watch. For some reason my Sat are always set aside.

I know we've had this discussion in previous years, but I still think it bears repeating. Is the point of playoffs entertainment or to find the best team in college football?

Click to expand...

All big sports are entertainment, first and foremost. That was assured the moment they demanded payment for viewing and came to rely on that money.

The 2014 version of a post-season will exist for the same reason as the 2013 version: to silence the critics. The BCS was created out of the incessant demand for an unquestioned #1. Not the best team, mind you. Just an undisputed champion.

The playoff was created out of the incessant demand that the BCS title game not exclude teams which had a fair argument for playing in the title game. That same argument will, sooner or later, lead to an expansion of the playoff.

None of them, not the BCS, not the playoff, not the expanded playoff, will consistently produce an unequivocal national champion. The very nature of one-game elimination contests assures that many times, the "best" team loses a game many think it shouldn't.

Alabama lost such a game to Auburn in the regular season. That game was, in essence, a playoff game. Yet until Oklahoma beat Alabama in a bowl game, I bet you could find a fair chunk of fans who thought 'Bama should have been the team playing FSU.

The funny thing is that there's no assurance that Alabama would have made an 8-team playoff this season, had one been in place.

So your question is moot, more or less. It's impossible to devise a system that will absolutely, positively produce the best team in college football every single year.

Maybe do it like World Cup, where the teams spend four years competing to see who is the eventual champion. That should be enough time for everyone to play everyone else in a home and home, and would strongly encourage the students to finish their four years.

1 is the best team for the entire season. This has been the prevailing model forever, the reason champions used to get crownd befor bowl games and why bowl games are still glorified exhibition games. But its always a beauty contest based on perceptions of fallible individuals with all sorts of inherent biasis.

2 is the best team at the end of the season, because that is what a playoff produces. Who is hot at the end. Its the reason the giants went 9-7 and won a Superbowl. Hockey is the most indicative of this as it is not uncommon for an 8 seed to make a run to the cup.

College football is too large with too many teams to ever be able to unequivacally say "this is the best team". Ive always liked the college world series double elimination style, because losses happen to really good teams every year. But theres no feasable way to institute that into college football, so take the ranking system we have now and playoff the top 8. Entertaining and you get a better look at how these teams matchup, and no 5 week layoffs.